Esperanto (The Universal Language)/The Making of an International Language

by Ludwik Lejzer Zamenhof

THE MAKING OF AN INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE.

[By Dr. Zamenhof.]

From the "Fundamenta Krestomatio," which every Esperantist should read.

---

If the reader should take up this little work with an incredulous smile, supposing that he is about to peruse the impracticable schemes of some good citizen of Utopia, I would in the first place beg of him to lay aside all prejudice, and treat seriously and critically the question brought before him.

I need not here point out the considerable importance to humanity of an international language—a language unconditionally accepted by everyone, and the common property of the whole world. How much time and labour we spend in learning foreign tongues, and yet when travelling in foreign countries we are, as a rule, unable to converse with other human beings in their own language. How much time, labour, and money are wasted in translating the literary productions of one nation into the language of another, and yet, if we rely on translations alone, we can become acquainted with but a tithe of foreign literature.,

Were there but an international language all translations would be made into it alone, as into a tongue intelligible to all, and works of an international character would be written in it in the first instance.

The Chinese wall dividing literatures would disappear, and the works of other nations would be as readily intelligible to us as those of our own authors. Books being the same for everyone, education, ideals, convictions, aims, would be the same too, and all nations would be united in a common brotherhood. Being compelled, as we now are, to devote our time to the study of several different languages, we cannot study any of them sufficiently well, and there are but few persons who can even boast a complete mastery of their mother-tongue. On the other hand, languages cannot progress towards perfection, and we are often obliged, even in speaking our own language, to borrow words and expressions from foreigners, or to express our thoughts inexactly.

How different would the case be had we but two languages to learn; we should know them infinitely better, and the languages themselves would grow richer, and reach a higher degree of perfection than is found in any of those now existing. And yet though language is the prime motor of civilisation, and to it alone we owe the fact that we have raised ourselves above the level of other animals, difference of speech is a cause of antipathy, nay even of hatred, between people, as being the first thing to strike us on meeting. Not being understood we keep aloof, and the first notion that occurs to our minds is, not to find out whether the others are of our own political opinions, or whence their ancestors came from thousands of years ago, but to dislike the strange sound of their language. Moreover, anyone who has lived for a length of time in a commercial city, whose inhabitants were of different unfriendly nations, will easily understand what a boon would be conferred on mankind by the adoption of an international idiom, which, without interfering with domestic affairs or the private life of nations, would play the part of an official and commercial dialect, at any rate, in countries inhabited by people of different nationalities.

I will not expatiate on the immense importance which, it may well be imagined, an international language would acquire in science, commerce, etc. Whoever has but once bestowed a thought on the subject will surely acknowledge that no sacrifice would be too great if by it we could obtain a universal tongue. It is, therefore, imperative that the slightest effort in that direction should be attended to. The best years of my life have been devoted to this momentous cause.

I shall not here enter upon an analysis of the various attempts already made to give the public a universal language, but will content myself with remarking that these efforts have amounted either to a short system of mutually-intelligible signs, or to a natural simplification of the grammar of existing modern languages, with a change of their words into others arbitrarily formed. The attempts of the first category were quickly seen to be too complicated for practical use, and so faded into oblivion; those of the second were, perhaps, entitled to the name of "languages," but certainly not "international" languages. The inventors called their tongues "universal," I know not why, possibly because no one in the whole world, except themselves, could understand a single word written or spoken in any of them. If a language, in order to become universal, has but to be named so, then, forsooth, the wish of any single individual can frame out of any existing dialect a universal tongue. As these authors naively imagined that their essays would be enthusiastically welcomed and taken up by the whole world, and as this unanimous welcome is precisely what the cold and indifferent world declines to give, when there is no chance of realising any immediate benefit, it is not much to be marvelled at if these brilliant attempts came to nothing. The greater part of the world was not in the slightest degree interested in the prospect of a new language, and the persons who really cared about the matter thought it scarcely worth while to learn a tongue which none but the inventor could understand. When the whole world, said they, has learnt this language, or at least several million people, we will do the same.

I have always been interested in the question of a universal language, but as I did not feel myself better qualified for the work than the authors of so many other fruitless attempts, I did not risk running into print, and merely occupied myself with imaginary schemes and a minute study of the problem. At length, however, some happy ideas, the fruits of my reflections, incited me to further work, and induced me to essay the systematic conquest of the many obstacles which beset the path of the inventor of a new rational universal language. As it appears to me that I have almost succeeded in my undertaking, I am now venturing to lay before a critical public the results of my long and assiduous labours.

The principal difficulties to be overcome were:—

(1). To render the study of the language so easy as to make its acquisition mere play to the learner.

(2). To enable the learner to make direct use of his knowledge with persons of any nationality, whether the language be universally accepted or not; in other words, the language is to be directly a means of international communication.

(3). To find some means of overcoming the natural indifference of mankind, and disposing them, in the quickest manner possible, and en masse, to learn and use the proposed language as a living one, and not only in last extremities, and with the key at hand.

Amongst the numberless projects submitted at various times to the public, often under the high-sounding but unaccountable name of "universal languages," no one has solved at once more than one of the above-mentioned problems, and even that but partially.

Before proceeding to enlighten the reader as to the means employed for the solution of the problems, I would ask of him to reconsider the exact significance of each separately, so that he may not be inclined to quibble at my methods of solution merely because they may appear to him perhaps too simple. I do this because I am well aware that the majority of mankind feel disposed to bestow their consideration on any subject the more carefully, in proportion, as it is enigmatical and incomprehensible. Such persons, at the sight of so short a grammar, with rules so simple and so readily intelligible, will be ready to regard it with a contemptuous glance, never considering the fact—of which a little further reflection would convince them—that this simplification and bringing of each detail out of its original complicated form into the simplest and easiest conceivable was, in fact, the most insuperable obstacle to be overcome.

The First Difficulty.

The first of the problems was solved in the following manner:—

(1). I simplified the grammar to the utmost, and while, on the one hand, I carried out my object in the spirit of the existing modern languages, in order to make the study as free from difficulties as possible, on the other hand, I did not deprive it of clearness, exactness, and flexibility. My whole grammar can be learned perfectly in one hour. The immense alleviation given to the study of a language by such a grammar must be self-evident to everyone.

(2). I established rules for the formation of new words, and at the same time reduced to a very small compass the list of words absolutely necessary to be learned, without, however, depriving the language of the means of becoming a rich one. On the contrary, thanks to the possibility of forming from one root word any number of compounds, expressive of every conceivable shade of idea, I made it the richest of the rich amongst modern tongues. This I accomplished by the introduction of numerous prefixes and suffixes, by whose aid the student is enabled to create new words for himself, without the necessity of having previously to learn them. For example:—

(1). The prefix mal denotes the direct opposite of any idea. If, for instance, we know the word for "good," bon'a, we can immediately form that for "bad," mal' bon'a, and hence the necessity of a special word for "bad" is obviated. In like manner, alt'a, "high," "tall," mal'al'ta, "low," "short" ; estim'i, "to respect," mal'estim'i, "to despise," etc. Consequently, if one has learned this single word mal he is relieved of learning a long string of words such as "hard,"(premising that he knows "soft,") "cold," "old," "dirty," "distant," "darkness," "shame," "to hate," etc., etc.

(2). The suffix in marks the feminine gender, and thus if we know the word "brother," frat'o, we can form " sister," fratin'o; so also, "father," patr'o; "mother," patr'in'o. By this device words like "grandmother," "bride," "girl," "hen," "cow," etc., are done away with.

(3). The suffix il indicates an instrument for a given purpose, e.g., trantĉ'i, " to cut," trantĉ'il'o, "a knife"; so words like "comb," "axe," "bell," etc., are rendered unnecessary.

In the same manner are employed many other affixes—some fifty in all—which the reader will find in the vocabulary. Moreover, as I have laid it down as a general rule that every word already regarded as international—the so-called "foreign" words, for example—undergoes no change in my language, except such as may be necessary to bring it into conformity with the international orthography, innumerable words become superfluous, e.g., "locomotive," "telegraph." "nerve," "temperature," "centre," "form," "public," "platinum," "figure," "waggon," "comedy," and hundreds more.

By the help of these rules, and others, which will be found in the grammar, the language is rendered so exceedingly simple that the whole labour in learning consists in committing to memory some 3,000 words—which number includes all the grammatical inflexions, prefixes, etc. With the assistance of the rules given in the grammar, anyone of ordinary intellectual capacity may form for himself all the words, expressions, and idioms in ordinary use. Even these 3,000 words, as will be shown directly, are so chosen that the learning them offers no difficulty to a well- educated person.

Thus the acquirement of this rich, mellifluous, universally-comprehensible language is not a matter of years of a laborious study, but the mere light amusement of a few days.

Problem No. 2.

The solution of the second problem was effected thus:—

(1). I introduced a complete dismemberment of ideas into independent words, so that the whole language consists, not of words in different states of grammatical inflexion, but of unchangeable words. If the reader will turn to one of the pages of this book written in my language, he will perceive that each word always retains its original unalterable form—namely, that under which it appears in the vocabulary. The various grammatical inflexions, the reciprocal relations of the members of a sentence, are expressed by the junction of immutable syllables. But the structure of such a synthetic language being altogether strange to the chief European nations, and consequently difficult for them to become accustomed to, I have adapted this principle of dismemberment to the spirit of the European languages, in such a manner that anyone learning my tongue from grammar alone, without having previously read this introduction—which is quite unnecessary for the learner—will never perceive that the structure of the language differs in any respect from that of his mother-tongue. So, for example, the derivation of frat'in'o, which is in reality a compound of frat "child of the same parents as one's self," in "female," o "an entity," "that which exists," i.e., "that which exists as a female child of the same parents as one's self"="a sister," is explained by the grammar thus: the root for "brother" is frat, the termination of substantives in the nominative case is o, hence frat'o is the equivalent of "brother"; the feminine gender is formed by the suffix in, hence frat'in'o = "sister." (The little strokes between certain letters are added in accordance with a rule of the grammar, which requires their insertion between each component part of every complete word). Thus the learner experiences no difficulty, and never even imagines that what he calls terminations, suffixes, etc., are complete and independent words, which always keep their own proper significations, whether placed at the beginning or end of a word, in the middle, or alone. The result of this construction of the language is that everything written in it can be immediately and perfectly understood by the help of the vocabulary—or even almost without it—by anyone who has not only not learnt the language before, but even has never heard of its very existence.

Let me illustrate this by an example:—I am amongst Englishmen, and have not the slightest knowledge of the English language; I am absolutely in need of making myself understood, and write in the international tongue, maybe, as follows:—

Mi ne sci'as kie mi las'is la baston'o'n; ĉu vi ĝin ne vid'is?

I hold out to one of the strangers an International English vocabulary, and point to the title, where the following sentence appears in large letters:— "Everything written in the international language can be translated by the help of this vocabulary. If several words together express but a single idea, they are written as one word, but separated by commas; e.g., frat'in'o, though a single idea, is yet composed of three words, which must be looked for separately in the vocabulary." If my companion has never heard of the international language he will probably favour me at first with a vacant stare, will then take the paper offered to him, and, searching for the words in the vocabulary, as directed, will make out something of this kind:—

Mi	$\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \end{matrix}}\right.}$	mi	=	I	$\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,}$	I
ne	$\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \end{matrix}}\right.}$	ne	=	not	$\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,}$	not
sci'as	$\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right.}$	sci	=	know	$\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,}$	do know
		as	=	sign of the present
				tense
kie	$\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \end{matrix}}\right.}$	kie	=	where	$\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,}$	where
mi	$\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \end{matrix}}\right.}$	mi	=	I	$\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,}$	I
lasis	$\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right.}$	las	=	leave	$\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,}$	have left
		is	=	sign of the past
				tense
la	$\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \end{matrix}}\right.}$	la	=	the	$\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,}$	the
baston'o'n;	$\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right.}$	baston	=	stick	$\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,}$	stick;
		o	=	sign of a substantive
		n	=	sign of the objective
				case
ĉu	$\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right.}$	ĉu	=	whether, if,	$\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,}$	whether
				employed in ques-
				tions
vi	$\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \end{matrix}}\right.}$	vi	=	you, thou	$\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,}$	you
ĝin	$\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right.}$	ĝi	=	it, this	$\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,}$	it
		n	=	sign of the objective
				case
ne	$\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \end{matrix}}\right.}$	ne	=	not	$\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,}$	not
vid'is?	$\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right.}$	vid	=	see	$\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,}$	have seen?
		is	=	sign of the past tense

And thus the Englishman will easily understand what it is I desire. If he wishes to reply, I show him an English-International vocabulary, on which are printed these words:—" To express anything by means of this vocabulary, in the international language, look for the words required in the vocabulary itself; and for the terminations necessary to distinguish the grammatical forms look in the grammatical appendix, under the respective headings of the parts of speech which you desire to express." Since the explanation of the whole grammatical structure of the language is comprised in a few lines—as a glance at the grammar will show—the finding of the required terminations occupies no longer time than the turning up a word in the dictionary.

I would now direct the attention of my readers to another matter, at first sight a trifling one, but, in truth, of immense importance. Everyone knows the impossibility of communicating intelligibly with a foreigner by the aid of even the best of dictionaries, if one have no previous acquaintance with the language. In order to find any given word in a dictionary, we must know its derivation, for when words are arranged in sentences, nearly every one of them undergoes some grammatical change. After this alteration, a word often bears not the least resemblance to its primary form, so that without knowing something of the language beforehand, we are able to find hardly any of the words occurring in a given phrase, and even those we do find will give no connected sense. Suppose, for example, I had written the simple sentence adduced above in German: "Ich weiss nicht wo ich den Stock gelassen habe; haben Sie ihn nicht gesehen?" Anyone who did not speak or understand German, after searching for each word separately in a dictionary, would produce the following farrago of nonsense: "I; white; not; where; I ;—; stick; dispassionate; property; to have; she, they, you;—; not;—?" I need scarcely point out that a lexicon of a modern language is usually a volume of a certain bulk, and the search for any number of words one by one is in itself a most laborious undertaking, not to speak of the different significations attaching to the same word, amongst which there is but a bare possibility of the student selecting the right one. The international vocabulary, owing to the highly synthetic structure of the language, is a mere leaflet, which one might carry in one's note book, or the waistcoat-pocket.

Granted that we had a language with a grammar simplified to the utmost, and whose every word had a definite fixed meaning, the person addressed would require not only to have beforehand some knowledge of the grammar, to be able, even with the vocabulary at hand, to understand anything addressed to bin), but would also need some previous acquaintance with the vocabulary itself, in order to be able to distinguish between the primitive word and its grammatically-altered derivatives. The utility, again, of such a language would wholly depend upon the number of its adepts, for when sitting, for instance, in a railway-carriage, and wishing to ask a fellow-traveller "How long do we stop at — ?" it is scarcely to be expected that he will undertake to learn the grammar of the language before replying! By using, on the other hand, the international language, we are set in possibility of communicating directly with a person of any nationality, even though he may never have heard of the existence of the language before.

Anything whatever, written in the international tongue, can be translated, without difficulty, by means of the vocabulary alone, no previous study being requisite. The reader may easily convince himself of the truth of this assertion by experimenting for himself with the specimens of the language appended to this pamphlet. A person of good education will seldom need to refer to the vocabulary, a linguist scarcely at all.

Let us suppose that you have to write to a Spaniard, who neither knows your language nor you his. You think that probably he has never heard of the international tongue. No matter, write boldly to him in that language, and be sure he will understand you perfectly. The complete vocabulary required for everyday use, being but a single sheet of paper, can be bought for a few pence, in any language you please, easily enclosed in the smallest envelope, and forwarded with your letter. The person to whom it is addressed will without doubt understand what you have written, the vocabulary being not only a clue to, but a complete explanation of your letter. The wonderful power of combination possessed by the words of the international language renders this lilliputian lexicon amply sufficient for the expression of every want of daily life; but words seldom met with, technical terms, and foreign words familiar to all nations, as "tobacco," "theatre," "fabric," etc., are not included in it. If such words, therefore, are needed, and it is impossible to express them by some equivalent terms, the larger vocabulary must be consulted.

(2). It has now been shown how, by means of the peculiar structure of the international tongue, anyone may enter into an intelligible correspondence with another person of a different nationality. The sole drawback, until the language becomes more widely known, is the necessity under which the writer is placed of waiting until the person addressed shall have analysed his thoughts. In order to remove this obstacle as far as practicable, at least for persons of education, recourse was had to the following expedient. Such words as are common to the languages of all civilised peoples, together with the so-called "foreign" words and technical terms, were left unaltered. If a word has a different sound in different languages, that sound has been chosen which is common to at least two or three of the most important European tongues, or which, if found in one language only, has become familiar to other nations. When the required word has a different sound in every language, some word was sought for, having only a relative likeness in meaning to the other, or one which, though seldom used, is yet well known to the leading nations, e.g., the word for "near" is different in every European language, but if one consider for a moment the word "proximus" (nearest), it will be noticed that some modified form of the word is in use in all important tongues. If, then, I call "near" proksim, the meaning will be apparent to every educated man. In other emergencies words were drawn from the Latin, as being a quasi-international language. Deviations from these rules were only made in exceptional cases, as for the avoidance of homonyms, simplicity of orthography, etc. In this manner, being in communication with a European of fair education, who has never learnt the international tongue, one may make sure of being immediately understood, without the person addressed having to refer continually to the vocabulary.

In order that the reader may prove for himself the truth of all that has been set forth above, two specimens of the international language are subjoined.^[1]

Patr'o ni'a.

Patr'o ni'a, kiu est'as en la ĉiel'o, sankt'a est'u Vi'a nom'o, ven'u reĝ'ec'o Vi'a, est'u vol'o Vi'a, kiel en la ĉiel'o, tiel ankaŭ sur la ter'o. Pan'o'n ni'a'n ĉiu'tag'a'n don'u al ni hodiaŭ, kaj pardon'u al ni ŝuld'o'j'n ni'aj'n, kiel ni ankaŭ pardon'as al ni'a'j ŝuld'ant'o'j; ne konduku ni'n en tent'o'n; sed liber'ig'u ni'n de la mal'vera, ĉar Vi'a est'as la regad'o, la fort'o, kaj la gloro eterne. Amen!

El la Bibli'o.

Je la komenc'o Di'o kre'is la ter'o'n kaj la ĉiel'o'n. Kaj la ter'o est'is sen'form'a kaj dezert'a, kaj inal'lum'o est'is super la profund'a'ĵo, kaj la anim'o de Di'o si'n port'is super la akv'o. Kaj Di'o dir'is: est'u lum'o; kaj far'iĝ'is lum'o. Kaj Di'o vid'is la lum'o'n ke ĝi est'as bon'a, kaj nom'is Di'o la lum'o'n tag'o, kaj la mal'lum'o'n Li nom'is nokt'o. Kaj est'is vesper'o, kaj est'is maten'o—unu tag'o. Kaj Di'o dir'is: est'u firm'aj'o inter la akv'o, kaj gi apart'ig'u akv'on de akv'o. Kaj Di'o kre'is la firm'aĵ'o'n kaj apart'ig'is la akv'o'n kiu est'as sub la firm'aĵ'o, de la akv'o kiu est'as super la firm'aĵ'o; kaj far'iĝ'is tiel. Kaj Di'o nom'is la firm'aĵ'o'n ĉiel'o. Kaj est'is vesper'o, kaj est'is maten'o—la du'a tag'o. Kaj Di'o dir'is: kolekt'u sin la akv'o de sub la ĉiel'o unu lok'o'n, kaj montr'u si'n sek'aĵ'o; kaj far'iĝ'is tiel. Kaj Di'o nom'is la sek'aĵ'o'n ter'o, kaj la kolekt'o'j'n de la akv'o Li nom'is mar'o'j.

---

1. In correspondence with persons who have learnt the language, as well as in works written for them exclusively, the commas, separating parts of words, are omitted.